US Pilots Labor Discussion

[BoeingBoy]

Absolutely WRONG. If you are in one of the industries covered by the RLA, it does not matter whether you are unionized or not. You STILL are regulated under the RLA. Ask the Delta FAs.

Since the NMB requires that all contracts/agreements be filed with them and makes a seachable database available, how about looking up the DL FA agreement? I think you'll find that every agreement that the NMB has on file is for a union represented group.

While a group, like the DL FA's, may work under an "agreement" it is the "agreement" offered by the company and changeable by the company any time it wants.

Certainly the NMB imposes regulations on a company/employee relationship - an employee can't be fired for trying to get union representation, for example - but the NMB doesn't regulate the "agreement" between non-represented employees and the company.

Perhaps this will clear up your confusion (from the NMB):

The Railway Labor Act (RLA) (www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html) requires labor and management to make every reasonable effort to make and maintain collective bargaining agreements within the airline and railroad industries, without disruption of airline or railroad transportation services. Mediation of collective bargaining agreements in these industries are the only disputes within the National Mediation Board's (NMB) jurisdiction.

Notice that that doesn't say "agreements" but rather "collective bargaining agreements". At will employees don't have "collective bargaining agreements", only represented employees have those.

Jim

 

[Bear96]

There is a HUGE difference between an arbitration administered by an association as an internal tool and one adminstered to federal standards to settle a federal legal issue.

Really? How so?

Are you saying one is somehow legally more enforceable than the other?

Because if so, you are not correct. An arbitration between private parties over a private matter is just as enforceable as an arbitration "adminstered to federal standards to settle a federal legal issue" (whatever that means, exactly).

 

[cleardirect]

The difference is US Airways was about to emerge, America West was about to enter.
Clueless, iindeed.

Really!! What was the plan to emerge? I suggest that you ask Parker at the next crew news what us airways plan was.

How about you go to the BK court and show us the plan that was filed.

You made the statement prove your point.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Really!! What was the plan to emerge? I suggest that you ask Parker at the next crew news what us airways plan was.

He already told you on SEVERAL occasions that neither company would presently exist without the other. Why don't you believe him? I do.

 

[cactusboy53]

The difference is US Airways was about to emerge, America West was about to enter.
Clueless, indeed.

Keep tapping those ruby red shoes, Dorothy.... 😀 ....."We were going to emerge victorious, there's no place like home, AWA was surely going to file bankruptcy, there's no place like home........(Revisionist history just isn't going to work on anyone else other than yourselves, perhaps.)

Oh BTW, you really shouldn't allow yourself to be selective when quoting Parker (when it suits you).

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Really? How so?

Are you saying one is somehow legally more enforceable than the other?

Because if so, you are not correct. An arbitration between private parties over a private matter is just as enforceable as an arbitration "adminstered to federal standards to settle a federal legal issue" (whatever that means, exactly).

Because the user of the tools changed. ALPA is no longer the CBA, so now any sort of merger or negotiation has to be with the current "bargaining unit" to use Doug's own words, and by their merger rules, not the old CBA. You can read this in the Ninth's decision, as well, where they refer to the "internal union process". Even ALPA was not bound to use it, per their own lawyer, who said it was "only a bargaining position".

If you don't get it, you will soon enough.

The Nic is dead. Period.

 

[Freighterguynow]

I think we're talking about two different things - you about separate ops and me about what USAPA wants in the contract that the East thinks would be ratified.
Jim

Yes Jim we are. While I agree with you on USAPA C/R you wrote words in my mouth I didn't mean and was just trying to clear the air.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The difference is US Airways was about to emerge, America West was about to enter.
Clueless, iindeed.

You do have a lot of fanciful opinions. Lakefield himself said that the merger was the only realistic way for US to emerge from BK. That was after the original plan to lower costs to become competitive with low cost carriers was abandoned because there wasn't the cash to last long enough to complete that original transition.

And your proof that HP (or AWH) was about to enter BK? Non-existent.

Jim

 

[Bear96]

Because the user of the tools changed. ALPA is no longer the CBA, so now any sort of merger or negotiation has to be with the current "bargaining unit" to use Doug's own words, and by their merger rules, not the old CBA.

I see.

So USAirways is free to ignore the pilot pay rates negotiated between it and ALPA in the current CBA because ALPA is no longer your collective bargaining agent, and can legally cut your wages in half tomorrow should it wish?

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Since the NMB requires that all contracts/agreements be filed with them and makes a seachable database available, how about looking up the DL FA agreement? I think you'll find that every agreement that the NMB has on file is for a union represented group.

While a group, like the DL FA's, may work under an "agreement" it is the "agreement" offered by the company and changeable by the company any time it wants.

Certainly the NMB imposes regulations on a company/employee relationship - an employee can't be fired for trying to get union representation, for example - but the NMB doesn't regulate the "agreement" between non-represented employees and the company.

Perhaps this will clear up your confusion (from the NMB):

The Railway Labor Act (RLA) (www.nmb.gov/documents/rla.html) requires labor and management to make every reasonable effort to make and maintain collective bargaining agreements within the airline and railroad industries, without disruption of airline or railroad transportation services. Mediation of collective bargaining agreements in these industries are the only disputes within the National Mediation Board's (NMB) jurisdiction.

Notice that that doesn't say "agreements" but rather "collective bargaining agreements". At will employees don't have "collective bargaining agreements", only represented employees have those.

Jim

I actually agree with you on this. There is actually nothing that protects some of the nonrepresented groups more than the threat of being guaranteed the right to unionize and be represented. In some instances, I believe this might provide more protection than a union itself would, because it forces the management to tread lightly, even in disputed areas. In companies with representation, as we have seen, the prevailing attitude seems to be "we'll do what we want, and if you don't like it, grieve it", knowing how long the grievance process can take.

There are also portions of the RLA that require time frames for changing agreements, not necessarily just collective bargaining agreements.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I see.

So USAirways is free to ignore the pilot pay rates negotiated between it and ALPA in the current CBA because ALPA is no longer your collective bargaining agent, and can legally cut your wages in half tomorrow should it wish?

Nope. You still don't get it. USAPA inherited all of the ratified agreements from ALPA. Since the seniority provision lives in the Pilot Contract, a previously unratified document, USAPA can negotiate, in good faith, that provision, just as any other provision of the contract. If the contract HAD been ratified, then whatever ALPA had come up with for seniority would be a done deal. Of course we know that ALPA itself didn't consider itself bound by the Nic, or why bother with things like the Rice commission or Wye River? Even the Ninth made note of that detail.

Hey, you said you are a "practicing labor attorney". You don't work for AOL, do you? Their lawyers seem about as clueless.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There are also portions of the RLA that require time frames for changing agreements, not necessarily just collective bargaining agreements.

And I would argue that "agreements" as used in those portions falls under the umbrella of collective bargaining agreements, not a broadening of the law to include any "agreements" that a company has with at-will employees.

Jim

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

I see.

So USAirways is free to ignore the pilot pay rates negotiated between it and ALPA in the current CBA because ALPA is no longer your collective bargaining agent, and can legally cut your wages in half tomorrow should it wish?

BEAR, we all know why you don't practice law, infact I even doubt you ever even drove past a law school with a reply like that! MM!

 

[cleardirect]

He already told you on SEVERAL occasions that neither company would presently exist without the other. Why don't you believe him? I do.

But wait! You just said that US Air was going to emerge from BK. Now you are saying that niether would exist. Would you at least stick with the same theory and fantasy for the same page.


I ask you to prove your point the us air had another option other than AWA. You said you were about to emerge. Show us the filing or the plan.

Otherwise nothing but rumor and opinion.

Other than Parkers word that AWA was going to enter BK what finacial statements do you have to prove that point? At the time AWA was showing profits.

Than I guess you also believe him when he said that us air had no other option, no other plan and was going to liquidate. He has said that on tape.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Other than Parkers word that AWA was going to enter BK what finacial statements do you have to prove that point? At the time AWA was showing profits.

What oldie ignores is the changing story that Parker has offered up as economic conditions changed since the merger. Initially he said that HP "might" face a liquidity crunch without the merger, changing over time to the current "neither would be here today" without the merger. I'd suggest that no one, Parker included, knows what would have happened to HP with the fuel price spike to ~$4/gallon and recession if US had liquidated in 2006.

Jim